linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] ath10k: use new module_firmware

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 01:05:30 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Steve deRosier <derosier@...il.com>,
        Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>, jeyu@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, aquini@...hat.com, cai@....pw, dyoung@...hat.com,
        bhe@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        gpiccoli@...onical.com, pmladek@...e.com,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, schlad@...e.de,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, will@...nel.org,
        mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        ath10k@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] ath10k: use new module_firmware_crashed()

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:16:45PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:22:02 +0000 Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > Indeed my issue with devlink is that it did not seem generic enough for
> > all devices which use firmware and for which firmware can crash. Support
> > should not have to be "add devlink support" + "now use this new hook",
> > but rather a very lighweight devlink_crash(device) call we can sprinkly
> > with only the device as a functional requirement.
> 
> We can provide a lightweight devlink_crash(device) which only generates
> the notification, without the need to register the health reporter or a
> devlink instance upfront. But then we loose the ability to control the
> recovery, count errors, etc. So I'd think that's not the direction we
> want to go in.

Care to show me what the diff stat for a non devlink driver would look
like? Just keep in mind this taint is 1 line addition. Granted, if we
can use SmPL grammar to automate addition of an initial framework to a
driver that'd be great, but since the device addition is subsystem
specific (device_add() and friends), I don't suspect this will be easily
automated.

   Luis